Blue Crab Boulevard

Shrinking Into Oblivion

The New York Times just announced that it will shrink the amount of space they devote to ~~anti-administration disinformation~~ news by 5% by 2008. This is their way of cutting costs. Reduce the news content.

The New York Times is planning to reduce the size of the newspaper, making it narrower by one and a half inches, and to close its printing operation in Edison, N.J., company officials said yesterday.

….

The company said the changes would save about $42 million a year — $30 million by consolidating printing at College Point and $12 million by reducing the size of the paper. Leaving the Edison plant means the company can avoid about $50 million in capital improvements there, although it will spend about $150 million to combine the facilities in College Point and buy a new press.

The reduction in the size of The Times will mean a loss of 5 percent of the space the paper devotes to news. If the paper only reduced the size of its pages, it would lose 11 percent of that space, but Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, said such a loss would be too drastic, so the paper will add pages to make up for some of the loss.

“That’s a number that I think we can live with quite comfortably,” Mr. Keller said of the 5 percent reduction, adding that the smaller news space would require tighter editing and putting some news in digest form.

Keep shrinking the paper and soon it will disappear! What a great move for a news paper, cut the news. You know, the reason for your existence. It's leadership like this that helps confirm my confidence in my predictions about the Times.

Once again, Keller gone by the end of summer, Pinch gone at the next stockholder's meeting.

Media | Gaius Tuesday, 18 July , 2006

By Heffalump, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 7:57 am

All The News That Fits We Print…
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 8:02 am

Bingo.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 8:18 am

It’s funny to see you righties go on and on about the Times. Gee, they employed Judith Miller, who was writing propaganda for the Bush administration.

The Wall Street Journal printed the information about SWIFT the same day as the Times, but they get a free pass. The government itself has been bragging about their tracking of financial transactions, but somehow it’s a horrible sin when the Times prints a story about it.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 8:52 am

Different altogeher, and you know it. Stop trying to spin it.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 9:00 am

Gaius, how is it different? The stories appeared on the same day. Your argument that the WSJ only printed it because they new the Times was going to print it is absurd.

By the way, the WSJ has, in the past, run editorials denouncing leaks that first printed by…the WSJ. Weird crew, that.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 9:08 am

The WSJ was given the story after it became apparent that the NYT was going to publish. The administration was in a meeting trying to talk the LAT out of publishing when the NYT published.

The NYT led it, the others followed.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 9:19 am

Wow, what a great slogan for the WSJ–”All the news that the New York Times is about to print.”

I wonder if either will print this story:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/18/presidential-groping/
By LaMano, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 9:27 am

I can’t wait for the next 95%.
By RedRhyno, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 9:30 am

If the NYT did not have to print so many retractions that would decrease the size of the paper by 50%.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 9:33 am

That’s what the left has? Sqealing about the president’s use of an anglo-saxonism and trying to imply he’s a sexist?

You guys are sliding into oblivion, too. You’re making yourself irrelevant. Carry on.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 10:24 am

Don Singleton resorts to the last refuge of right-wing scoundrels–accusing those with whom they disagree of being terrorists and traitors.

Gaius, other than Tony Snow, what’s your source for the line that the WSJ only printed the story after it knew that the Times was going to print it? Do you realize how lame an excuse that is?
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 10:33 am

The WSJ itself said that was the case.
By dan, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 10:34 am

Thank you for my monthly dose of far conservative mindless rubbish. A disgrace to true Republicans everywhere.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 10:35 am

Thanks, Dan. We love you, too!
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 10:46 am

The WSJ also acknowledged that their reporter had been pursuing the story for some time.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 2:26 pm

Ah, typical right wing behavior–when confronted with facts that contradict their world view, they just drop the subject.

If you really believe that the WSJ only printed the story because the Times was about to print the same story, even though they had had a reporter pursuing the story, you are either gullible or blinded by ideology. Perhaps both.
By Pixie Pug, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 2:42 pm

I think the NYT will be gone long before their planned shrinkage.

I quit reading so-called newspapers when I found more trivial drivel than news.

Same with televison news.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 2:50 pm

I’ll point out your typical left wing shift off topic then demand that I address every issue you raise. Which I did answer but not the next extraneous point you raise. You’re wearing down my patience and your welcome. I am not your debating partner. Go get your own blog.
By FormerRighty, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 4:23 pm

Hey, all of you people expecting the imminent demise of the NYT, put your money where your fingers are: I’ll bet all of you $1000 that the NYT will still be around in three years.

Gaius, the fact that you attack the NYT but not the WSJ for doing exactly the same thing is on topic–it shows that your a partisan hack.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 4:25 pm

And thanks for your last comment on this blog, FR.
By Roland Hesz, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 2:59 am

Jeez, that is groping?

Holly smoke, everyone here is a molester..
You are soo sensitive.

Let me tell you, physical contact is part of human behaviour.
And dirtiest jokes are told by the girls.

Shrug….
By Robin, Thursday, 20 July , 2006 @ 5:54 am

Off topic, sort of….. yesterday, I caught the last few minutes of TAlk of the Nation on NPR. They were discussing the current Middle East crisis and a caller managed to get on the air and started raving about “The Grope” and the humiliation he felt as an American. Both the host Neil Conan and the guest (I think it was NPR’s political correspondent Ken Rudin) dismissed the non-story outright and dismissed the caller. “Inconsequential,” I believe is what Rudin said.

If NPR doesn’t care about “The Grope” you know it’s not a story.
By Gaius, Thursday, 20 July , 2006 @ 6:06 am

Yeah, that was a really lame attempt at making a stir.